[Milsurplus] CRV-46123...what is it?...

[Mike Hanz]

Morrow, Michael A. wrote:

 > Does anyone know if the USN developed a more capable airborne DF set
 > than the DZ in WWII (other than adopting the USAAF's excellent
 > SCR-269 ADF, as is apparent in some WWII USN aircraft photos)?

That's an interesting question, and I can think of two sides to the 
issue, both of which are based on the definition of "more capable."  Of 
the DF equipments available, the DF performance of the DZ was reportedly 
superior to all of them, but a big part of its accuracy was apparently 
the complex loop head with its nested loops, compensation, and ability 
to tune lower frequencies.  There is one school of thought that would 
suggest that the AAC actually inherited their SCR-269 and variants from 
the Navy, since the Navy heavily subsidized Bendix in developing and 
purchasing their commercial products for use on Navy aircraft in the 
1930s.  They didn't even bother to nomenclature them with Navy tags. 
The Bendix gray wrinkle was a common sight on Navy aircraft, and the 
ubiquitous MN-26 DF unit was apparently a fixture on Navy patrol 
aircraft long before the AAF began to use it as an alternative to their 
SCR-269 and later ARN-7.  Like most arguments of this sort, either 
position is probably untenable in the long run, and as mentioned, would 
depend heavily on definitions of numbers deployed versus performance 
versus automatic versus manual versus you name it...

 > The USAAF seems to have been leaps ahead of the USN in airborne ADF
 > and ILS technology by the end of WWII.

I don't hold a particular bias on either Service being a better avionics 
developer, but a tour through the NRL history books will likely show a 
significant program for DF and ILS far earlier than the US Army - and 
they were worried about locating and landing on a much smaller landing 
field that the AAC/AAF!  I might hazard a guess that any particular 
system adopted as a JAN equipment was more a product of politics that 
technical superiority, but then my perception is colored by where I 
live...heh, heh...

 > I'd bet a WWII SCR-269 ADF
 > and a RC-103 localizer/ARN-5 glideslope/RC-193 marker beacon system
 > would almost be serviceable today except for the limited frequencies
 > selectable on the localizer and glideslope sets.  OTOH, maybe the
 > USN's ZB/YG homing system was all the USN really needed.

As an interesting aside, the ARR-1 was a standard piece of gear on AAF 
aircraft later in the war.  Also known as the ZB-*, the AAF must have 
considered it useful for something...  :-)  More seriously, I suspect 
that a serious study of Navy and AAF radio research over the war years 
would show significant developments by both, but my impression from 
documents here is that the Navy usually had programs going far earlier 
than the Army.  'Course, with that and $3 you can get a Starbucks coffee.

 > You got to love the technology and engineering found in these old
 > sets, even though most boatanchor radio fans could care less about
 > DF, ILS, or homing systems.

Agreed.  Fascinating and innovative use of fairly primitive technology.

73,
Mike